Judge Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case Number: 24PSCV01151, Date: 2025-01-08 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 24PSCV01151, Date: 2025-01-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24PSCV01151 Hearing Date: January 8, 2025 Dept: 6

CASE NAME: Roundway Import Inc v. Ahmed Enterprise LLC, et al.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Order Compelling Defendant Ahmed Enterprise LLC to Produce Documents Requested

TENTATIVE RULING

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Roundway Import Inc’s motion for order compelling Defendant Ahmed Enterprise LLC to produce documents requested. Defendant Ahmed Enterprise LLC must provide verified code-compliant responses without objection and all responsive documents to counsel for Plaintiff no later than 20 days from the date of this order.

The Court further GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions in the reduced amount of $1,185.00, and orders Defendant Ahmed Enterprise LLC to pay such monetary sanctions to counsel for Plaintiff within 20 days of this order.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.

BACKGROUND

This is a breach of contract case. On April 11, 2024, plaintiff Roundway Import Inc (Plaintiff) filed this action against defendants Ahmed Enterprise LLC.AKA Elite Tire and Wheel Wholesale (Ahmed Enterprise), Sarfraz Ahmed, and Does 1 through 20, alleging causes of action for breach of written contract, unjust enrichment, account stated, open book account, and goods sold and delivered.

On December 10, 2024, Plaintiff moved for an order compelling Defendant Ahmed Enterprise to produce documents requested. On December 20, 2024, Ahmed Enterprise opposed the motion. Plaintiff did not reply.

LEGAL STANDARD

When a party fails to serve a timely response to an inspection demand, the party making the demand may move for an order compelling a response to the inspection demand. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (b).) A party who fails to provide a timely response waives any objection, including one based on privilege or work product. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).) “[T]he court shall impose a monetary sanction… against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Id., § 2031.300, subd. (c).)

DISCUSSION

Meet and Confer

Although meeting and conferring is not required before bringing motions to compel, the Court appreciates Plaintiff’s efforts to meet and confer before bringing this motion. (Shang Decl., ¶¶ 6-8; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404.) The Court does request, however, that the parties meet and confer in person, by telephone, or by video conference going forward. (Dept. 6 Courtroom Information [“Parties are required to meet and confer in person, by telephone, or by video conference before filing any motion”].)

Analysis

Plaintiff seeks to compel responses to Plaintiff’s first set of requests for production of documents served on Defendant Ahmed Enterprise on September 18, 2024. (Shang Decl., ¶ 2.) Despite having granted an extension, Ahmed Enterprise failed to provide any responses or responsive documents. (Shang Decl., ¶¶ 3-8.) In opposition, Ahmed Enterprise does not dispute having failed to provide responses or responsive documents.

The Court finds Plaintiff’s motion well taken. Plaintiff has presented sufficient evidence demonstrating service of the underlying discovery requests on Ahmed Enterprise and Ahmed Enterprise’s lack of responses and responsive documents. Moreover, Ahmed Enterprise does not dispute having failed to provide responses or responsive documents, which the Court construes as a tacit admission that Plaintiff’s arguments are meritorious. (D.I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Court (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 728, fn. 4 [where nonmoving party fails to oppose a ground for a motion, "it is assumed that [nonmoving party] concedes" that ground].) Therefore, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion. Defendant Ahmed Enterprise must provide verified code-compliant responses without objection and all responsive documents to counsel for Plaintiff no later than 20 days from the date of this order.

With respect to monetary sanctions, Plaintiff seeks $5,735.00, which Ahmed Enterprise contends is unreasonable and should be reduced. The Court agrees with Ahmed Enterprise. This is a straightforward motion to compel responses and does not warrant the 8.5 hours requested. The Court also finds Plaintiff’s counsel’s rate of $550.00 excessive for the relevant legal community, and will reduce it to $450.00 per hour. “The courts repeatedly have stated that the trial court is in the best position to value the services rendered by the attorneys in his or her courtroom [citation]….” (569 E. Cnty. Boulevard LLC v. Backcountry Against the Dump, Inc. (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 426, 436-437.)

Accordingly, the Court awards monetary sanctions in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant in the reduced amount of $1,185.00, comprised of 1.5 hours preparing the motion and 1.0 hour appearing at the hearing on the motion, for a total of 2.5 hours, multiplied by the reduced hourly rate of $450.00, plus the $60.00 filing fee. Defendant Ahmed Enterprise must pay said monetary sanctions to counsel for Plaintiff within 20 days of this order.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.